Subject: Progressing BFD authentication documents

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 12:07:40 -0500

Working Group,

On March 28, 2018, we started Working Group Last Call on the following document
bundle:

  draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers
  draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication
  draft-ietf-bfd-stability

The same day, Mahesh Jethanandani acknowledged there was pending IPR
declarations against these drafts.  An IPR declaration was finally posted on
November 1, 2018.  In particular, it notes a patent.  The licenseing is
RAND.  

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3328/

In the time since the WGLC was requested, there were a number of technical
comments made on these drafts.  It's my belief that all substantial
technical comments had been addressed in the last posted version of these
documents.  Note that there was one lingering comment about Yang
considerations for the BFD module with regard to enabling this optimized
authentication mode which can be dealt with separably.

The chairs did not carry out a further consensus call to ensure that there
are no further outstanding technical issues.

On November 21, Greg Mirsky indicated an objection to progressing the
document due to late disclosure.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/u8rvWwvDWRKI3jseGHecAB9WtDo

Since we are a little over a month prior to the upcoming IETF 104, this
seems a good time to try to decide how the Working Group shall finish this
work.  Since we are meeting in Prague, this may progress to microphone
conversation.

For the moment, the chairs' perceived status of the documents are:
- No pending technical issues with the documents with one known issue.
- Concerns over late disclosure of IPR.
- No solid consensus from the Working Group that we're ready to proceed.
  This part may be covered by a future consensus call, but let's hear list
  discussion first.

-- Jeff

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:22:37 -0800

Hi Jeff,
thank you for the clear and concise summary. I need to note that my
concerns are not only with how late the IPR Disclosure was made but, I want
to stress, with the licensing terms set forth by the holder of IPR that
allow for possible request of royalties from an implementor.

Regards,
Greg

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:55:44 +0000

Jeff

Two of the three I-D you mention have timed out and are not available
through the usual channels.

I suggest that the first step needs to be a refresh so that they are
available.

(Yes, I know I can jump through hoops and find obsoleted I-Ds but life
is too short:-)

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Haas" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 5:07 PM
> document due to late disclosure.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/u8rvWwvDWRKI3jseGHecAB9WtD
o

---

From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 05:39:54 +0800

Hi Tom,

We are in the process of refreshing all the drafts that have expired.

Cheers.

> On Feb 19, 2019, at 5:55 PM, tom petch <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Jeff
> 

Mahesh Jethanandani
[email-masked]